Add to library

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: it snapshots the previous state before writing and allows revert via nuvio_undo, and supports dry_run for non-destructive previews. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint false, destructiveHint false) by explaining how the mutation is made safe and reversible. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two concise sentences front-load the core purpose (upsert) and then add the key safety features (dry_run, snapshot, revert). Every word contributes value with no redundancy or irrelevant detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the essential operation and safety mechanisms, but given the complexity of the items array (many optional fields) and the presence of profile_id, it omits details about the expected response, error behavior, and any limits on batch size. The schema provides field structure, but the description could be more complete about operational expectations.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33% (only dry_run has a description). The tool description explains the upsert key for items, adding meaning to the array parameter, but does not describe profile_id or the structure/optional fields of items. It partially compensates for the low coverage but leaves profile_id and item field semantics undocumented in prose.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb (add/update) and resource (library items) with explicit upsert semantics based on content_id + content_type. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like nuvio_remove_from_library, nuvio_add_addon, and nuvio_add_plugin, which target different resources or operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly indicates the intended use case (bulk upsert of library items) and mentions the revert workflow via nuvio_undo. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives or list when not to use, but the resource specificity and mention of the opposite tool (remove) in the sibling list make usage implicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.